[reallydude]

These aren't bold claims, if you've been reading about it for a decade. Even the New York times covered these points (more or less).

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-...

All these issues were at the forefront of the "discussions". The strategy to upsell technological improvements to struggling schools, was a simple way to by pass skepticism. Might as well try something new?

I don't remember specific "Powerful Educators" looking to boost student scores, via a massive monetary investment, but someone had to sign off. There were a few newsworthy failures and no demonstrable good...although it's a little early to tell. I found that my early exposure to computers when I was six, led in to my current career. So there may not be any conclusions for decades.

Other proponents included vendors like Apple (iPads for everyone in a Los Angeles school, lol) and politicians, who were either bribed or philosophically sold (if there's a difference). Again, this wasn't a scientific decision and one-off school trials are VERY difficult to get past entrenched interests like regulators and unions via equivalence challenges (ie if it's good enough for 1 school it's good enough for all, right? Oh so you're experimenting on these kids but not these?).